Man-Made Fire Blamed for Australian Extinctions

JeiFuRi writes "Around 50,000 years ago, many large Australian animals died off with the arrival of man. From a study carried out by the Carnegie Institution, we now know that the continent's earliest settlers caused these extinctions through their use of fire. In addition, it may have altered the ecosystem of ancient Australia and brought about it's collapse. Futher commentary at BBC News, newKerala, and Red Nova." "Know" is a strong word; the study suggests this may be the case, though.

Comments

Thats evolution for you

[FidelCatsro]

50,000 years and the Aussies are still big on barbecues.
Seriously though , Such is evolution .The species that could not adapt quickly enough died off.
I always had a small problem with conservation efforts , I know its lovely to save endangered species and all that , but does it not hamper the natural order further by trying to save species that can not cope by themselves.

Re:Thats evolution for you

[George Tirebuyer]

There is a big evolutionary advantage to tasting good. Angus cattle come to mind. They appear to be doing well.

Its bloody hot down there.

[torpor]

I've survived many a bush fire with nothing but a damp potato sack for my miseries, and much as I despise the negative impact we've had on this land, I can tell you that its a beautiful thing indeed to walk around the scorched Aussie landscape for weeks after the event, watching new life grow .. and the first rains after the fire are wonderful too, for days afterwards new wildflowers spring forth, and in the midst of the dry black and grey and red, you suddenly see green and purple and blue and pink and yellow .. and a month or two afterwards, the land is restored to its glory..

Australia is a beautiful place, so truly uniqe. Its a good thing that, at least, we are discussing its management, and our effect, and the demise so far, intelligently at least ...

Re:Homo sapiens: The Other Species

[kotku]

We have the ability to choose one outcome over another. In this case when several consequences are choosable, the argument that the "consequences are part of the natural order" is a moot point and at worst an excuse for being irresponsible. Even if *conservation* is a human concept it is a concept brought about by a desire to live in a world that is interesting, varied and reasonably stable for the majority of the human population.